Race, Representation, and Policy Attitudes in U.S. Public Schools

by Lael A. Keiser & Donald P. Haider-Markel

Tragic events around the country highlight the disproportionate ill-treatment of African Americans within the criminal justice system, the high levels of distrust African Americans have for the police and political institutions in general, and the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in public institutions. In response, some have sought to increase the passive or descriptive representation of minorities within law enforcement, higher education, and public schools, with the hope that doing so will improve the treatment of under-represented groups and enhance positive attitudes toward institutions and the policies they implement. 

However, different schools of thought exist about whether increasing representation of minorities is a zero-sum game (where increasing representation of one group reduces it for others) and whether it worsens attitudes of historical majorities. Further, while scholars have discussed two major perspectives – the mirror image and the institutional democracy hypotheses – few have measured passive representation in ways that fit these two perspectives or examined their implications for both minority and majority groups. 

According to the theory of symbolic representation, greater passive representation can evoke feelings of inclusiveness and of being represented which, in turn, impacts public attitudes toward policy and public institutions. Two distinct and competing mechanisms connect this passive representation with citizen attitudes. One argument, described as the “mirror image” hypothesis, is that a person’s support for government institutions depends, in part, on whether people within those institutions “look like” that person. The institutional symbol of democracy perspective, on the other hand, posits that support for public institutions depends on whether the institution reflects the population as a whole. 

In our paper, we test both of these hypotheses by examining passive representation in public schools and attitudes about school discipline using different measures of passive representation that better map onto existing theory. Using individual-level survey data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS), we analyze a sample of 5,750 white, Black, and Hispanic 10th-grade students across 453 high schools who were asked their perspectives on the fairness of school rules and whether they felt the rules were implemented in a uniform manner across all students. We utilize three distinct measures of passive representation, as illustrated below.

Our results were more consistent with the institutional symbol hypothesis, where more diverse school personnel corresponded with more positive attitudes about how institutions implement policy among white students. White students in schools with a higher proportion of minority teachers (and therefore fewer white teachers) were more likely to think punishment is fair than were white students in schools with less passive representation for minorities. This finding provides evidence that increasing the number of minority teachers may not always be considered a zero-sum context.  However, we do find evidence in support of the mirror image hypothesis for Black students who were more likely to think punishment was fairer when their percentage representation was greater but we find no evidence that attitudes were affected by representation measured by diversity or proportional representation.  We find inconsistent results for Hispanic students. 

However, our results suggest some important caveats. Though our analysis indicated that white students’ attitudes toward fairness were greater in schools with higher percentage representation of minorities, this was largely only the case in schools with smaller minority student populations. We found no evidence that white students’ attitudes varied with differences in proportional representation. This suggests that the positive link between minority representation and whites’ attitudes was strongest when in schools with relatively small minority student shares.

And perhaps more importantly, our results highlight how the use of different measures of representation, as well as of distinct statistical models, can lead to dissimilar results. This calls attention to the assumptions researchers implicitly make about theory when they choose measures of representation and calls us to both specify the theoretical mechanisms at play and to match them to theory so that we can improve our understanding of how passive representation truly affects policy attitudes. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Keiser, Lael R., Donald P. Haider-Markel, and Rajeev Darolia. 2022. “Race, Representation, and Policy Attitudes in U.S. Public Schools.” Policy Studies Journal, 50(4): 823–848. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12443

About the Authors

Lael R. Keiser is professor and director of the Harry S. Truman School of Government and Public Affairs. Her research and teaching focuses on the policy implementation and the administration of public programs. She serves on the editorial boards of Public Administration Review and the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.

Donald P. Haider-Markel is Professor of political science at the University of Kansas. His research and teaching are focused on the representation of group interests in politics and policy, and the dynamics between public opinion, political behavior, and public policy.

, ,

Rethinking Policy Piloting: Managing Uncertainty in the Policy Process

by Sreeja Nair

As governments grapple with uncertainties associated with complex policy issues such as climate change, digital transformation, pandemics and Artificial Intelligence, the role of policy piloting and experimentation will be key in shaping policy choices. Designing policies as pilots and experiments “in theory” permits governments a safe space to test new and alternative policy designs and learn from them. There are, however, challenges in realizing the potential of pilots to do so in practice. In my book Rethinking Policy Piloting, I study design features of selected policy pilots that were launched to manage risk and uncertainty in the agriculture sector in India. Despite their technical merit, pilots—just as regular policies—are prone to political influences, which can alter their expected performance on implementation. This is then an interesting departure from a common sentiment, “When in doubt, just pilot.”

Drawing from literature on policy experimentation, scaling-up, and policy change, I develop a theoretical model with four conditions hypothesized to influence a pilot’s outcomes in terms of its policy translation. These conditions are 1) the pilot’s vision to scale-up, 2) stakeholders governing the pilot, 3) semblance of the pilot’s objectives and 4) semblance of the pilot’s instruments (to reach set objectives) to a policy it was designed to improve or replace. Thirteen policy pilots launched by the central Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India to address risks and uncertainties in agriculture production were selected for a comparative case analysis. These pilots spread across 25 years starting from 1990—the decade that saw liberalization and decentralization reforms in India to 2015.

The pilots aimed at increasing crop productivity and reducing risks to agricultural production following a period of demonstration and evaluation and involved testing of different policy elements for guiding national agriculture policy. While some were intended to be incremental measures to support current policy programmes, others proposed new models and innovations to reform and replace the same. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with those involved in design and implementation or evaluation of the pilots. Thick case narratives along with a Qualitative Comparative Analysis helped understand how variations in the four conditions influenced the outcomes of each pilot.

The analysis reveals three key insights. First, pilots can survive in different forms without scaling-up fully and still contribute meaningfully to improved policy design. Second, successful design, implementation, and scaling up of pilots is not automatic and involves a tussle between its technical merit and political appeal. Pilots come with the risk of failure and associated reputational consequences to the policymaker and thus might often be conservative, proposing only marginal changes to current policies. Third, a departure from conservative pilots is seen when non-governmental actors are involved, which could be attributed to risk-sharing in case of failure.

Rethinking Policy Piloting makes an appeal to policymakers to experiment more considering these as opportunities to improve policy design, and to researchers to regulate their enthusiasm around expected outcomes from pilots considering the politics that surrounds them- just as routine policies.

About the Author

Sreeja Nair is an Assistant Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. She studies how governments manage risk and uncertainty in the policy process, focusing on the interplay of science and politics. Her research examines varied policy tools, in particular pilots and experimentation, for addressing high uncertainty in planning for climate change, sustainability transitions and digital transformation. Follow her on X/Twitter: @Sreeja_Nair01

, , ,

Understanding Policy Influence in Hybrid Regimes: Insights from a Qualitative Study of Policy Advice in Ukraine and Moldova

by Denitsa Marchevska & Trui Steen

Policy advisory systems research has provided important insights into the networks of individuals and organizations that support decision makers during the policy process. Much of this research has, however, focused on Western (liberal) democracies. Less is known about how those findings apply (or don’t) in weak democratic or even authoritarian settings. 

To address this gap, we turn our attention to policy advisory systems in “hybrid regimes” – that is, political systems that exhibit both democratic and authoritarian features. For example, a hybrid regime might hold competitive elections, which are mostly free but not necessarily fair due to abuse of administrative resources by incumbents. Similarly, they may feature key institutions associated with democratic governance but their functioning may be impaired by the presence of rampant corruption. 

To illustrate our point, we use Ukraine and Moldova as case studies. Between June and October 2021, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 45 individuals across both countries (21 from Moldova, 24 from Ukraine) who were involved in the policy process in some capacity, including civil servants, consultants, representatives of donor organizations, and others. The interviewees hailed from four main policy domains: economy, environment, health, and rule of law. 

The interviews sought to explore the different reasons why decision makers choose to accept or ignore policy advice. The analysis focused on four broad types of explanatory factors in line with the framework proposed by Manwaring (2019). Namely, the analysis looked for factors associated with demand (the reasons why policymakers seek  advice), supply (explanations focused on the source of the advice), content (the substance of the advice provided), and context (the larger ecosystem within which advice is given and received). The aim of the analysis was to explore how the manifestations of those dimensions varies (or not) within the hybrid regime setting and how this compares to what we know about advisory dynamics in established democracies.

Our findings nuanced Manwaring’s framework in several ways. For one, while Manwaring presents the four above factors as discrete units, in practice it was challenging to sort motivations into these categories neatly. For example, the line between context and demand-side considerations proved especially porous. It was almost impossible to separate contextual factors like societal salience from demand considerations linked to political survival in the analysis. 

We also found a clear hierarchy in the importance of the four factors, which the framework did not necessarily acknowledge.  In particular, demand-side and contextual considerations appeared far more important  in determining whether policy advice is accepted than supply-side and content-related ones. The demand for advice arguably emerged as the most salient determinant of advisory success. The policy and advisory process appeared to be highly reflective of the wants and needs of those in power, something which is only exacerbated by the relative weakness of political institutions as well as commitments to the rule of law in these hybrid regimes. 

Related to this, we observed that the advisory dynamics in Moldova and Ukraine tend to be much more personalized (i.e., the individual preferences of government officials were decisive) and politicized (e.g., strongly impacted by political considerations) than is typically assumed within Western democracies. Current thinking about policy advisory systems tend to adopt biased assumptions about depoliticized, rational bureaucracies contributing to a preoccupation with expertise and institutional explanations for advisory influence. Considering both personalization and politicization within policy advisory systems models will make them more useful for studying hybrid regimes.

Lastly, our analysis highlights that international actors (e.g., donor organizations), as well as the international context more broadly, exert significant influence on the policy advisory systems of both Moldova and Ukraine. While this international dimension is rarely examined in the context of affluent Western democracies, it appears highly salient in countries like Ukraine and Moldova, given their greater reliance on international financial support and expertise to help shore up weak political and economic institutions. 

Though existing conceptualisations of the advisory process have much to offer, we show that they require some retooling to capture the nuances of policy advisory systems outside of the democratic context. Scholarship on policy advice should pursue greater empirical diversity in order to untangle such commonalities and differences as well as to advance a more robust comparative understanding on policy advisory dynamics. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Marchevska, Denitsa and Trui, Steen. 2022. “Understanding Policy Influence in Hybrid Regimes: Insights from a Qualitative Study of Policy Advice in Ukraine and Moldova.” Policy Studies Journal, 50(4): 735–755.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12477

About the Authors

Denitsa Marchevska is a PhD Researcher at KU Leuven’s Public Governance Institute and a Doctoral Fellow of Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), Belgium. Her research focuses on policy advice provision, advisory systems and public policy formulation in flawed democracies and hybrid regimes with a particular focus on Eastern Europe. She also carries out research on (comparative) politico-administrative relations and bureaucratic politicization in the region.

Trui Steen is Full Professor at KU Leuven’s Public Governance Institute. She is interested in the governance of public services and the role therein of different stakeholders, including public sector professionals, civil society and citizens. Her research interests include co-creation and co-production of public services, public sector innovation, and local governance.

, , ,

Policy Design Receptivity and Target Populations: A Social Construction Framework Approach to Climate Change Policy

by Chris Koski & Paul Manson

Climate change is by any definition a wicked problem with myriad potential policy tools and even more potential targets. Policymakers face difficult political choices when designing policies to combat climate change. Among these choices are who should bear the costs and benefits of various policy tool options. Policy tools can be carrots and sticks, and policymakers assign these differently based on who will receive either option. Previous attempts to address climate change at the federal level have largely relied on subsidies and guidance rather than rules and punishment. Winners in these choices have been those with power to influence outcomes.

Previous research on federal climate policy has sought to explain failure both in legislation and executive action. Why have efforts to establish a carbon market in the US failed?  What was the source of demise for the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (and can Biden breathe life into it)?  Public opinion research has focused on understanding support for climate policies, including very specific proposals (e.g. cap and trade). Missing from this work is the general answer to the question: How do policy design features influence public support for policy?

Our article “Policy Design Receptivity and Target Populations: A Social Construction Framework Approach to Climate Change Policy,” recently published in Policy Studies Journal, addresses this question. Our work is situated in the literature on policy deservingness and the resurgence of interest in the social construction of target populations framework.

Using a national survey experiment, we assessed support for seven policy tools across the four archetypal target populations built on Schneider and Ingram’s Policy Design for Democracy.  We find that climate policies are popular across all target populations. Contemporary federal climate policy focuses on carrots: de-emphasizing regulations, leveraging subsidies, and creating carve-outs for firms. In contrast, we find the public prefers sticks: policies that impose burdens – in our case, policies that mandate behaviors – for nearly all target populations, even the positively constructed groups who have power.  The public still supports subsidizing most populations, but not those viewed as undeserving.  Perhaps the most striking contrast between our findings and the federal policy discourse on climate change is that we find Americans are broadly hostile to giving groups exceptions to climate rules, a carrot they will not share with others.

Future work could consider a more complex, and realistic, view of policymaking, namely, that policies target bundles of populations with multiple tools. For example, the Biden administration has taken two distinct approaches to electric vehicle policies in the US, creating subsidies to purchase or lease EVs as well as proposing fuel economy standards that require automakers to increase fleet efficiency. Our current research and research we plan for the future hope to improve the relationship between design and public support for policy.

Editor’s Note: This article won the 2024 Theodore J. Lowi Policy Studies Journal Best Article Award. Congratulations to the authors!

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Koski, Chris and Paul Manson. 2024. “Policy Design Receptivity and Target Populations: A Social Construction Framework Approach to Climate Change Policy.” Policy Studies Journal, 52(2): 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12520.

About the Authors

Chris Koski is the Daniel B. Greenberg Professor of Political Science and Environmental Studies at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. He is co-author of Means, Motives, and Opportunities: How Executives and Interest Groups Set Public Policy with Christian Breunig published by Cambridge University Press (2024).

Paul Manson is Assistant Research Professor with the Center for Public Service at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon.

, , , ,

Bridging Policy Research Across Borders: Challenges and Opportunities for China

by Geoboo Song (PSJ Editor-in-Chief)

On June 14, 2024, I delivered a virtual keynote address at the inaugural International Conference on China Policy Studies (ICCPS) in Beijing, China. While primarily aimed at policy scholars in China, my presentation also holds significance for policy scholars in other non-Western countries. Recently, there were discussions about “Global South” issues during the Conference on Policy Process Research (COPPR) meeting in Syracuse, NY, which the PSJ editors took seriously, prompting immediate action. In light of these developments, I believe sharing my keynote speech here would be beneficial. Below is an excerpt from my keynote address:

As the Editor-in-Chief of the Policy Studies Journal, I have had the privilege of working closely with scholars from around the world, witnessing firsthand the transformative power of collaborative policy research. PSJ, a premier publication outlet for theory-driven policy research, has been at the forefront of delivering cutting-edge research that addresses some of the most pressing global challenges.

In today’s interconnected world, the challenges we face are increasingly complex, uncertain, and global in nature. Issues such as climate change, public health crises, and economic disparity do not recognize national boundaries. As such, the need for robust, collaborative policy research has never been greater. By working together, we can craft innovative solutions that benefit not just our own nations, but the world at large.

Tackling grand challenges, such as extreme weather events, disaster management, immigration crisis, and water and food insecurity, require collaborative and innovative efforts that transcend borders. Policy research plays a crucial role in addressing these issues by providing evidence-based solutions and fostering informed decision-making.

PSJ, a leading publication in the field, has been renowned for its contributions to policy process theory research over half a century. This area of research is pivotal, as the pressing policy issues we face are often fraught with uncertainty, complexity, and inherently “wicked” nature of such challenges. In these contexts, enhancing “procedural rationality” (which focuses on how decisions are made) is as important, if not more so, than “substantive rationality” (which focuses on what decisions are made). And, I firmly believe that this sort of process theory-driven approach ensures more robust problem-solving strategies in the long run, particularly when addressing the grand challenges we encounter.

Equally important is recognizing that mutual benefits arise from international policy research collaboration. By sharing knowledge, resources, and expertise across borders, we can elevate the quality and impact of our policy research. Such collaborative efforts also promote cultural exchange and mutual understanding, which are vital for addressing global challenges effectively.

China has made remarkable progress in policy research in recent years. During my five-year tenure as a PSJ editor, I’ve witnessed Chinese policy scholars, both domestically and internationally, contributing significantly to a broad spectrum of policy theories and substantive policy domains. Their work highlights innovative approaches and invaluable insights. In fact, policy scholars in China have published more articles in PSJ than any other Asian countries in recent years.

Despite this progress, significant challenges remain. Broadly, these can be examined on two levels: individual vs. research environment. On the individual level, many Chinese policy scholars, especially those from non-elite backgrounds, face difficulties in several areas. Developing compelling research questions, achieving theoretical innovation, designing robust methodologies, and effectively communicating their findings, particularly in English, are common challenges. Additionally, securing funding and publishing in top-tier policy journals remain significant hurdles. On the other hand, the research environment encompasses the tangible and intangible resources that maximize individuals’ research competencies. This includes the structure and culture of the researcher’s organization or program, as well as broader institutional and network dynamics. For example, major research universities in the United States provide substantial financial support and reduced teaching loads for pre-tenure assistant professors, fostering an environment conducive to high-level research. In contrast, many Chinese institutions may lack comparable support, making it difficult for scholars to focus on their research.

Of course, numerous opportunities for collaboration exist between policy scholars in China and their counterparts around the world. Establishing partnerships can facilitate the exchange of ideas and resources, leading to more comprehensive and impactful research outcomes. More meaningful academic exchange programs and joint research initiatives can play a crucial role in fostering collaboration, enabling policy scholars to work together, share their expertise, and develop innovative solutions to common challenges. Technology and innovation are also key enablers of collaboration. Digital platforms and tools can facilitate communication, data sharing, and joint research efforts, making it easier for scholars to collaborate across borders. By leveraging these opportunities, we can address the challenges faced by Chinese policy scholars and enhance the global impact of policy research.

In conclusion, bridging policy research across borders is essential for overcoming constraints inherent in research practices in China, addressing global challenges, and creating a sustainable future both intellectually and practically. By working together, we can leverage our collective knowledge and expertise to develop innovative solutions that benefit everybody. I particularly encourage Chinese policy scholars to engage in more international collaborations and seek out new opportunities for joint research. Together, we can overcome challenges and create a brighter future for all.

,

Does Data Drive Policymaking? A Multiple Streams Perspective on the Relationship Between Indicators and Agenda Setting

by Rob A DeLeo & Alex Duarte

The multiple streams framework (MSF) illustrates how policies are formed not through linear processes, but through the convergence of three independent streams: the problem stream, the policy stream, and the political stream. While the MSF offers numerous insights into the often chaotic nature of policy making, prior studies have not fully explored the relationship between problem indicators and agenda setting. In this study, we explore nuanced ways that changes in indicators either shape or fail to influence policy responses.

Within the MSF, changes in problem indicators have the potential to elevate issues on the policy agenda. In addition, indicators that threaten powerful economic or political interests may lead to reduced policy attention. Recognizing the possibility that policymakers might overlook or downplay information that poses risks to their power or that contradicts prevailing policy directions, we introduce the concept of “indicator politicization.” 

We apply the MSF to examine the US Congress’s response to changes in opioid overdose rates. Empirically, we employ a mixed-methods approach to examine the relationship between opioid-related data and policy responses. Drawing on data from congressional hearings and legislative actions from 1999 to 2019, we explore how the changes in opioid-related indicators influenced legislative actions (or inactions). We use negative binomial regression analysis to estimate the effect of opioid indicators–heroin, fentanyl, and prescription opioids–on the congressional agenda. We then provide a case study that investigates the differential patterns of agenda change identified in our quantitative model. 

On one hand, we confirm the substantial impact of indicator change on policy attention, exemplified by marked upticks in policymaker attention to heroin and fentanyl overdose deaths. Policymaker attention was likely magnified by electoral concerns, as the opioid epidemic was a prominent issue during the 2016 election cycle. On the other hand, public awareness and political responses to prescription opioids developed slowly over several years. Indeed, although increases in opioid overdose indicators occasionally spurred congressional attention and led to policy shifts, such responses were inconsistent. A major obstacle is “data politicization”–when data threatens powerful interests, these entities can minimize or downplay the information to turn aside policy scrutiny. When data politicization occurs, it undermines the urgency and attention the issues receive even in the face of an escalating crisis hence the lack of attention to prescription opioids observed in our study.

This study sheds light on data-driven policymaking, with a focus on the constraints imposed by entrenched political interests. Data alone cannot drive policy changes when it conflicts with the interests of powerful stakeholders. We reevaluate the multiple streams framework’s (MSF) initial assumptions, which may overestimate the direct impact of indicators on policy decisions. Practically, we encourage policymakers, scholars, and practitioners to assess the power dynamics that shape policy responses to social issues. This is particularly relevant in crafting effective strategies for public health crises, where ideally, data should inform and guide policy responses. As the opioid crisis continues to evolve, this study underscores the importance of how data is interpreted and used in policy formulation. Moreover, it paves the way for future investigations into other policy areas where data may be underutilized or overlooked, advocating for a broader and more integrated approach to evidence-based policy making. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

DeLeo, Rob A. and Alex Duarte. 2022. “Does Data Drive Policymaking? A Multiple Streams Perspective on the Relationship Between Indicators and Agenda Setting.” Policy Studies Journal, 50(3): 701-724. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12419

About the Authors

Rob A. DeLeo is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at Bentley University. A policy process scholar by training, Rob’s work examines policy change in anticipation of emerging hazards, including climate change, novel diseases, and other slow onset events. His research has appeared in Policy Studies Journal, Public Administration Review, Policy & Politics, PNAS Nexus, Publius, Review of Policy Research, Natural Hazards Review as well as various other peer-reviewed journals and edited volumes. Rob’s work has been funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and various academic and private organizations. Rob previously held a visiting fellowship at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and is a founding member of the Risk & Social Policy Working Group, an interdisciplinary team of scholars examining the relationship between risk messaging and individual behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. He was the 2021 co-recipient of the American Political Science Association’s Theodore Lowi Award for the best article written in Policy Studies Journal.

Alex Duarte is a doctoral student at the Heller School for Social Policy. Alex graduated from Bentley University in 2019 and received a dual bachelor degree in public policy and business studies. During his time at Bentley, Alex’s research focused on policy indicators found within the substance abuse policy domain. Alex has also worked at the Peace Corps Headquarters in Washington DC and Project Weber, a Rhode Island-based harm reduction center for male and transgender sex workers.

,

More than Agents: Federal Bureaucrats as Information Suppliers in Policymaking

by JoBeth S. Shafran

Despite the widespread notion of federal bureaucrats as implementers of congressional will, their role in the policymaking process extends far beyond. Traditionally understood through the lens of principal-agent theory, bureaucrats act as agents to their principal, Congress, executing and implementing legislative directives without much influence on policy shaping. However,  bureaucrats are also key information suppliers to Congress. In this paper, I explore the conditions that enable bureaucrats to become influential contributors who define problems and propose solutions during legislative discussions.

Policymakers, constrained by limited resources, time, and attention, selectively rely on key information sources. Certain political elites, such as bureaucrats and interest groups, are actively invited to participate in policy making, while others remain on the periphery. Congress delegates the tasks of information processing and knowledge accumulation to the bureaucracy in return for neutral expertise. As such, I argue that the information asymmetry, wherein bureaucrats hold specialized knowledge not readily available to legislators, can be strategically leveraged by Congress. Bureaucrats are more likely to testify at congressional hearings under three conditions: when alternative information sources are scarce; when their expertise is essential for committee tasks, such as agency oversight; and when their input can help manage diverse committee workloads. 

Focusing on congressional hearings across three policy domains—domestic commerce, energy, and health—from 1995 to 2010, I examine approximately 4,700 hearings and more than 33,000 testimonies. Given the count nature of the dependent variable (a count of bureaucrats testifying at a given hearing), I employ negative binomial regressions to examine the factors influencing the prevalence of bureaucrats among witnesses, such as the type of committee and the agenda of the committee.  

The findings reveal that bureaucrats are more likely to be called as witnesses when committees face limited access to alternative expert sources and when the information bureaucrats provide is directly relevant to the committee’s legislative goals. As indicated in the figure below, I find a higher reliance on bureaucratic testimony when committees address a broader scope of issues, which implies that bureaucrats’ ability to process information is valued in diverse legislative environments. 

Figure 5. Predicted number of careerist bureaucrats testifying at constituency, policy, and power committees as agenda diversity increases, 1995-2010

Additionally, the findings show that bureaucratic testimony is more prevalent in policy areas characterized by lower public engagement and high technical complexity, such as energy policy. Conversely, in domestic commerce, where multiple stakeholders are involved and information is abundant, bureaucrats are less likely to dominate the testimony. This study enhances our understanding of bureaucratic expertise and knowledge in the legislative process. Bureaucrats do more than implement policy–they actively shape it through information provision in policy debates. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Shafran, JoBeth S. 2022. “More than Agents: Federal Bureaucrats as Information Suppliers in Policymaking.” Policy Studies Journal, 50(4): 921–943. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12455

About the Author

JoBeth S. Shafran is an assistant professor at Western Carolina University, where she teaches public policy courses for both the Political Science and Master of Public Affairs programs. Her research focuses on information processing in Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Her work has been published in Policy Studies Journal and Cognitive Systems Research, among others.

, ,

Birds of a Feather Fight Together: Forum Involvement in a Weakly Institutionalized Ecology of Policy Games

by Tomás Olivier & Ramiro Berardo

Policy forums play a crucial role in polycentric governance because they can facilitate collective action among diverse actors who are invested in a policy domain. Many of these arguments assume that forums are stable over time and that they attract actors with different ideas or interests. But, what happens in unstable policy settings where forums operate in a context of periodic rule change and limited enforcement?  To answer this question, we look at how policy forums can facilitate interactions among actors with different perceptions about collective action challenges regarding water governance in Patagonia, Argentina. 

Forums can facilitate collective action by attracting actors with different perceptions about policy problems. This fosters interactions among actors who would otherwise not interact, potentially facilitating collaboration and the generation of new insights about how to solve joint problems. 

We study water governance in the Lower Valley of the Chubut River, located in Argentina’s Patagonia region. In 2017 and 2018, we surveyed 58 individuals from 34 different stakeholder groups, including government entities, private companies, and researchers. Our survey presented stakeholders with various scenarios regarding water governance in the Lower Valley and asked them to rate the extent to which they saw the scenarios as accurate or inaccurate. We also asked them about their perceptions of the forums overseeing water governance in the Lower Valley (e.g., whether they were fair, effective, etc.) and environmental conditions in the basin.  

We found that out of the 31 active forums in the Lower Valley, many were attended by just one stakeholder. Furthermore, we observed that government entities do not appear to be very active in these forums, preferring to operate outside of them as needed. Part of the reason for low participation is that the forums in the Lower Valley tend to be short-lived, formed to tackle a specific problem or crisis and then dissolved shortly thereafter. 

Most importantly, we found that actors who participate in the same forums tend to have similar perceptions about the dominant collective action problem in the region. This finding is meaningful from a governance perspective: in a context of high transaction costs, forums may serve as the first space where actors with similar perceptions may build the necessary commitments to engage in collective action. These forums can be problematic, as the range of views represented in them on how to solve a problem are limited. However, a silver lining is that they can also foster collaboration among actors who would otherwise may be distrustful of one another.

Our study deepens our understanding of how actors may organize to address complex policy problems in a context of weak institutions, and argues that the stability of forums in time is key to maintaining consistent stakeholder participation, a necessary condition for the solution of system-wide environmental problems. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Olivier, Tomas and Ramiro Berardo. 2022. “Birds of a Feather Fight Together: Forum Involvement in a Weakly Institutionalized Ecology of Policy Games.” Policy Studies Journal, 50(1): 176-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12418

About the Authors

Tomás Olivier is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration at the Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs at Syracuse University.

Follow him on X/Twitter: @tolivier9

Ramiro Berardo is a Professor of Environmental and Natural Resource Policy at the School of Environment and Natural Resources at The Ohio State University.

Follow him on X/Twitter: @BerardoRamiro

, ,

The Paradoxical Power of Policy Loss in Group Identity and Action: A Study of the NRA’s Strategic Resilience

by Matthew J. Lacombe

Policy feedback scholarship has illustrated how policies shape group behaviors and political processes, primarily focusing on the benefits accrued by their proponents and supporters. This narrative typically celebrates the “winners”—those who benefit from policy enactments. However, less attention is paid to the groups that oppose the policies—what happens to the policy “losers”? 

I shift the focus to these overlooked groups and explore how policy losers turn their defeats into strategic opportunities for power-building. These groups often successfully engage in post-loss power-building efforts, especially when the policy (1) recognizes their members as a distinct class, and (2) does not undercut incentives for membership and mobilization. Such policy setbacks enable organized groups to point to the negative consequences these changes could have on their members, thereby increasing the political relevance and salience of their membership. In turn, organized groups strategically leverage these setbacks to their advantage, transforming defeats into opportunities to strengthen their group identity and collective action. 

I apply this framework to the realm of gun politics, focusing on the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its responses to two legislative defeats: the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady Act of 1993 and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Both losses mark significant moments when the NRA failed to prevent the enactment of stringent gun regulations. The data is obtained from various sources, including public records of gun legislation and its amendments, key NRA communications such as newsletters, press releases, and statements, as well as gun sales and membership data. 

Here are some of the key findings:

  • In the aftermath of legislative defeats, the NRA framed new policies as targeted threats to gun owners as a group. The NRA leveraged these perceived threats to cultivate shared grievances among its members and to rally support for pro-gun candidates in subsequent elections and policy battles. 
  • In response to losses, NRA supporters, following the organization’s lead, expressed frustration with how the new laws treated them. These sentiments likely influenced the NRA’s membership numbers and gun sales, with each increasing in the aftermath of gun laws being enacted. 
  • The NRA’s post-loss actions manifested in subsequent political battles, often as strong opposition against the policy. The NRA, in short, was able to use anger about losses to mobilize strong support during downstream policy debates.

This study highlights the power of strategic framing in political mobilization. Policy losses can fortify a group’s resolve, cohesion, and future political capabilities when these losses do not disrupt the incentives that groups rely on to drive collective action. This paper invites policymakers and political strategists to reconsider the effects of legislative outcomes not just on policy winners, but also on those who initially face defeats. Understanding that policy losers might use defeats as a springboard for greater organizational cohesion and political power could influence both the design and communication strategies around new policies.  

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

 Lacombe, M.J. (2022) “Post-loss power building: The feedback effects of policy loss on group identity and collective action.” Policy Studies Journal, 50, 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12446

About the Author

Matthew Lacombe is the Alexander P. Lamis Associate Professor in American Politics in the Department of Political Science at Case Western Reserve University and the author of Firepower: How the NRA Turned Gun Owners into a Political Force.


, ,

The Adoption of Culturally Contentious Innovations: The Case of Citizen Oversight of Police

by Mir Usman Ali

The deaths of George Floyd and Broenna Taylor at the hands of police in 2020 brought the issue of police accountability to the forefront of public debate. One reform that has been a long-standing demand of police accountability advocates is Citizen Oversight Agencies (COAs). COAs are institutional arrangements at the local level that provide a platform for non-sworn review complaints about the police. While there is growing scholarly interest in these agencies, little research has examined factors associated with their adoption. In this paper, I use innovation diffusion theory to help fill this gap. 

In particular, I investigate the role of cultural contentiousness, a previously understudied concept. When an innovation is culturally contentious, it challenges an existing institution’s dominant cultural meaning, leading to resistance. I argue that COAs are culturally contentious because they highlight the disconnect between the race- and class-neutral way police are supposed to perform their role in a liberal-capitalist society and the non-neutral way in which they actually perform it. Moreover, I argue that investigative COAs (i.e., COAs that can independently investigate allegations of police misconduct and recommend discipline) are more contentious than non-investigative COAs (which merely review or monitor police investigations of citizen complaints) because the former can be viewed as undermining the professional autonomy of the police.

To identify the factors associated with the adoption and diffusion of COAs at the municipal level in the United States between 1980 and 2016, I assembled a panel data set of all cities with a population greater than 100,000 persons as of 2010. There were 77 municipalities with COAs and 154 municipalities without COAs that met the criteria for inclusion in the study. I used event history modeling (EHM) to estimate the impact of various antecedents on the likelihood of adoption and diffusion of COAs. 

Results indicate that a federal investigation or entering a consent decree, an increase in the number of civil rights nonprofits, or an increase in own-source revenue per capita was associated with the adoption of investigative COAs, while not being associated with non-investigative COAs. These findings underscore the importance of antecedents that reveal contradictions between cultural assumptions and non-neutral material effects of policing.

I also find that antecedents that symbolically obfuscate the above contradiction, or whose meaning is unclear, tend to reduce the likelihood of adoption of COAs overall or increase the likelihood of adoption of non-investigative COAs. For instance, the presence of a Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBOR) law, an increase in the violent crime rate, or an increase in the number of neighboring cities with a COA either increased the likelihood of adopting a non-investigative COA or no COA at all.

In summary, this work highlights the importance of cultural contentiousness in innovation adoption and diffusion. While the results indicate that less culturally contentious change is more common, more contentious change does occur. However, for such change to be institutionalized, it needs to be supported by other levels of government and sustained advocacy efforts for police accountability. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at 

Ali, M. U.. 2023. “The adoption of culturally contentious innovations: The case of citizen oversight of police.” Policy Studies Journal, 51, 905–928. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12499

About the Author

Mir Usman Ali is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. His research revolves around building a theory of the conditions under which public managers and organizations can foster social equity-enhancing institutional change. His research has looked at a variety of topics such as citizen oversight of police, impact of body-worn cameras, policies intended to curb domestic violence, and pandemic preparedness among local health departments. He holds a Ph.D. in Public Affairs Indiana University-Bloomington, an M.S. in Statistics from Texas A&M University, College Station and MBA and BBA degrees from the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi. His research has been published in Public Administration Review, Public Performance and Management Review, American Review of Public Administration, and Policy Studies Journal.

, ,